Forum:Brickipedia: The reincarnation/Article Ratings

Forums - Brickipedia: The reincarnation/Article Ratings

This page is waiting to be archived by an administrator. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Should we change or remove any/all ratings? Ratings suck. It's too complicated of a structure. Let's keep Featured Article as a "status" for pages and keep the nomination page for it. Everything else doesn't need to be rated, and if a page needs big time expansion, we can start labeling pages as stubs instead of C4 or C5. If a page is merely out of date, we should have a Update template. If a page is a mess, we should have Cleanup template. It's an easier method that any reader/user will understand how to help without having to understand the rating system (or possibly without having to fully know our MoS) --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I like the idea of going down to a 3 or 4 tier system, as at the mo I think the lines between C4-C3 and Good-Featured are a bit blurry/pointless. I don't like the idea of slapping maintenance templates on pages though, they just get in the way of what little content articles have. Plus, they don't allow nice overviews of themes' ratings (like on Nova's blog or some project pages). UltrasonicNXT (talk) I cede the last point as true, but would argue the general effectiveness of the ability to generate nice lists compared to the easy of use of Meiko's suggested idea. CJC95 (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I like what Meiko is suggesting. Most if not all C1 articles could probably pass for featured, especially now where, frankly, we are desperate for new ones. I wouldn't mind keeping C2 and C2F (but renamed Complete and Complete (Future)) if we do end up keeping some variation of the system, but I rather we don't. Berrybrick (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC) My thoughts tend towards Meiko's idea. I've always considered having all these ratings as a bit of a waste of time, (hence me only joining the group a few months ago.) Featured articles should be the aim and obviously stay. Perhaps complete too, as many pages can't be featured, but then again, I don't see why we need to rate really. Like Meiko suggests, for most people, a stub or expand or incomplete or out of date or similar tell you more about the article than "c3" ever will. CJC95 (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I'm with NXT on this one. I think ratings are a helpful tool, and I don't particularly like a big banner saying "this page is bad!". On the other end, you can quickly see with a featured or complete rating that "this page is one of the best we have to offer" or "this page covers everything we currently know about the topic". Ratings are consistently in the same place, you can glance at an icon and see what it means. However, I think we have too many. Like NXT, I'd suggest four ratings- stub, average, complete and featured. Stub obviously for bad pages, average (which needs a better name) for c3 and high-end c4 articles which aren't complete, but don't exactly look bad. Complete for c2, except it's what complete was originally intended for before "c2" came along- articles which cover absolutely everything, but just don't have the potential to be featured. And feaatured for some of our best articles (current featured, and our better c1's). NovaHawk 00:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC) One thing we could try would be ratings like that and then some sort of non obtrusive template somewhere on the article which links to a subpage or another namespace that lists ways to improve the page. "Want to help us make Princess Leia a better article? [[WorkDesk:Princess Leia|Here's how!]]" Berrybrick (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC) who ever said my idea entailed a big banner? --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I don't mind keeping small ratings in the corner (as long as they have descriptive names like "complete" and "stub", not c4 or c2 or whatever, but also if it is a stub, then I think we should use the stub template to as then people are definitely gonna see it and are therefore more likely to improve it. (as in, when I come across a page, I don't look at the ratings - its not in the main field of view. A template is.) CJC95 (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I don't think stub is an obvious choice of word seeing as we're trying to appeal to children not teenagers. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 That's not true. Of all our audience we're directed at, adults and teenagers would be more of who we target than children. The most children will do here is look for images and minor details about a new set. Teenagers and adults are more likely to use the majority of the content we hold on the site and as a result are also more likely to contribute to said content. Not that children aren't our audience, they're just not our primary audience. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC) But LEGO is a children's toy :P We should try to aim ourselves towards them too. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 So...where as children won't understand what "stub" means, or say click a link where it says stub to see what it means, they will be able to understand what a class 5 is instantaneously? Also, as a editbase, those under 12 probably aren't a high percentage. Certainly if they can edit then, they can click a link and read, as they have to now anyway... CJC95 (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Surely it's obvious when a stub is a stub without the banner though? UltrasonicNXT (talk) To us veterans maybe, but to new/non-users, a banner saying "You can help improve this by blah de blah" would be more likely to get to them to edit then just thinking "well, this page is short". CJC95 (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Exactly what CJC said. Seeing a short page with no indication that it has room for improvement just leaves a visitor with the thought "This doesn't have all the information I was looking for". Having something that says they can help improve it can give them the thought "Well, I do know a little more about this topic, so I'll add that at least". And why do you keep saying "banner". Nobody said it has to be a banner. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC) Every stub template I've ever seen is a banner, that's why I'm saying banner. (Also, to be fair to banners, banners do fit nicely on wikipages without leaving gaps...) UltrasonicNXT (talk) Example: wikipedia:Symphysodon tarzoo --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC) I was thinking like that, but say "This article is missing a few pieces. You can help by adding a {description}" or whatever needs an article. CJC95 (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC) I'm kind of interested in Nova's described potential system. I think it has just the right level of information, and those levels of quality seem to be about right too. :P Workdesks also sound interesting... BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I like the current system except its colour scheme :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Vote Keep ratings as they are To be honest, I quite like our current system. It's easy for me to recognize all the article classes except maybe c1 and FA. But the difference between c4 and c3, or c2 and c1? No problem. I like that there are exact states a page can achieve, and you always know exactly what to add in order to advance it. With what Nova is suggesting, it sounds like the lines will be a little less definite, or at least less easy to attain. (I also don't really see why we're changing so many things like this. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" (or whatever that saying is). :P And this doesn't seem broken to me. Why go through an overhaul like this when there are articles waiting to be edited up to c2/1/FA?) Jeyo (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Well, the idea was to make them more definite and easier to rate :P Unrelated note- there is another forum about this made by CJC since then, I'm working on merging this and other forums back into here when I get more time. NovaHawk (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Move to a 4-tier system (stub, satisfactory, complete, featured) Per reasoning above NovaHawk 03:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC) This seems most sensible, a lot of our articles are closer to "average" than they are Class 4 (despite being called otherwise). -NBP3.0 (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC) As I have discussed elsewhere, I like this for simplicity, but still meaning each article has a clear status. UltrasonicNXT (talk) I think this would be the best system, actually. Simple, but not too simple! --LK901 10:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Ratings are messy, but have their place, let's streamline them instead of removing them completely. Pranciblad (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC) This sounds good. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Whats the difference between satisfactory and complete? :S This system just looks and feels like the current: C4, c3, C2 and FA. C1s and c5s aren't putting people off editing. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Basically satisfactory would be doesn't look terrible but doesn't have all relevant information on the page, or isn't MoS compliant. As you said, it's basically merging c4 and c3, and scrapping c1. NovaHawk 22:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC) I support this option as well as the below option. Both work for me. --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Per Meiko. I'd prefer below, but in the interest of any reform in this direction at all.... Berrybrick (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Scrap rating system, moving to a template-based system with stub, update, etc. This includes keeping an FA template Keep FA though CJC95 (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC) (Added to heading NovaHawk 22:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)) Support --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Berrybrick (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC) I don't think it's fair for me to vote for the current system as it's going nowhere. If we're going to change the system this is the best choice. Why do the other one if your only killing C5 and C1? That dosnt make sense to me changes should be big if the current state is broken not removing two sections. This makes things a lot more easier and hopefully we can get all admins to rate pages with this easy template. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Comments NXT, if you wanted to have a separate entry, please add, I think our ideas are pretty similar though. @Meiko, sorry if I didn't describe your idea well enough in the title, please feel free to reword. @Berrybrick: I haven't forgotten out your idea on the workdesk, but since it could go with a page regardless of the rating system, maybe we could discuss in a separate section? I like the idea though. NovaHawk 03:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC) It was my "great compromise." :P Yeah, we can discuss it in another section. I'm fine with either of the above suggestions to change the system as long as it is clearer how to improve the page. Berrybrick (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC) I know I said I was closing this off, I'm not sure if a 1/5/3 vote is too close to call? Any opinions? NovaHawk 00:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I would support the 4 tier system if it also includes the template-based system. I think the biggest problem with our current system is it doesn't tell what the problem with the article is necessarily (e.g. what it's missing that's keeping it from being a higher rating). With templates saying things like "this article needs __________", users can more easily determine how they can help the article. Plus, looking at articles that are in "Category:Articles that need _____", users can browse articles that need improvement easier based on how they want to contribute. Right now if a user is in the mood to add LEGO.com descriptions to an article, they can't easily find a list of pages that lack that description. With the category, they'd be able to find those pages, rather than looking through every C4 article which would be a nightmare. Going way back in time to when I worked on the Ninjago Wiki, we only had a few templates. No classes (besides featured), but it was always so easy to find what needed work and how exactly they needed improvement. I know we already have templates like this but their use should be more regular. I guess the current ones just don't seem to contribute much to content improvement. For example, while there's {{Update}}, that hardly ever says what needs to be updated. And often times, the update message box needs to be updated itself, for example I periodically see one that says a page lacks 2013 info, but it hasn't been updated in so long that it also lacks 2014 info and 2015 info. I think the problem is they lack detail. I think the most important one for us to adopt will be the stub template(s). Since Brickipedia is more broad than The Ninjago Wiki was, we'll probably need more than one stub template like Wikipedia, such as ones that will categorize them as "Minifigure stubs" or "BIONICLE stubs". This should be able to help users who want to contribute to a certain area find things that need work in those areas. (I don't know if I already said these exact things above I just wrote it all out and thought "did I already write this?" lolol) --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC) I think what me and Nova are thinking is that we used to have stub templates, but telling a user that a short page is short doesn't help loads. UltrasonicNXT (talk) Are loads a concern? Adding a couple extra bytes to a page shouldn't matter. The page will ideally become larger anyways and then remove the stub template, so really it's not like it'd ever "push" a page over the edge of how much the server can load. I think the benefits of stub categorization outweigh the concern of 50 extra bytes on a page at most. I'd much rather be able to filter something down to all the Bionicle-related stubs than have to sort through every Class 5, Class 4, and Class 3 article trying to find a Bionicle article that had something I knew how to improve. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC) You could say, put what could be added to the page to make it longer in the template... CJC95 (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC) CJC's long rambling comment This is being written at various free points over a period of couple of hours, so is probably incoherent. Hence why I've put it in its own section so I can use lots of bullet points without confusing things and to avoid a long text wall. Also, I haven't read most of the above since July, so forgive me if someone has already counter-argued my points/came up with solutions/is insulted by that. The rating system is clearly unsatisfactory at the moment. No one really knows what they mean. There is confusion, for example, of what the difference between C1 and C2 is - if a C2 is complete, what is a C1? Is it more complete? There is also, for example, confusion over what a c2f is, and the misguided belief that a c2f should automatically be a c2 upon release. This has led to the suggestion that the QCG should check the ratings on articles to ensure they are accurate often, which is obviously never done and never will be - it is labour intensive and unimportant to the site as a whole Which implies the current rating system is not relevant to how we use the site. Only one or two people really care about it, especially not the QCG, who (well, except Nova, who did most of the following) have made 50 changes since the 29th November, which surely, given how much information comes out in the month of December, means 100s of ratings are out of date? But it doesn't matter, because no one really uses the ratings to improve the articles. So I propose we have a smaller system. Personally I like something like "stub" "complete" "featured", but with the following stipend: Stubs would have little, unobtrusive bars, at the bottom, saying something like "this article needs (whatever), if you can help, why not edit" with a link or something like that. I guess I'd accept a 4 rating system like proposed above, but a fail to see what the difference between a satisfactory and complete page is. I am aware that that means most pages will be stubs - we can call it something nicer if that seems like a horrible prospect. Still, if we told people what needed doing on a page instead of just sticking a label in the corner that most don't notice and means nothing, then maybe more good will come from the system, and, to appease those moaning about such things - more editing will happen. (Oh, and I'm resigning from the QCG since its become apparent that I lack either the knowledge or the time or the willpower to contribute to it under the current system.) CJC95 (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC) I know what they mean crap, bad, okay, good, great and perfect. It's not a hard system, and changing it will be a long process that some users will end up hating. :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Then lets rename them crap, bad, okay, good, great and perfect. CJC95 (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC) That would take up to much space :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 No it wouldn't - crap is shorter than "class 5". CJC95 (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Telling people what to actually edit was an idea I had earlier, so I still support it. Berrybrick (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Stuff, broken into convenient dot points: I really like the idea of a box at the bottom of a page saying what's missing. But how would you add a box? I really don't want to go around and do that manually. This has led to the suggestion that the QCG should check the ratings on articles to ensure they are accurate often, which is obviously never done and never will be - it is labour intensive and unimportant to the site as a whole This is partially due to Special:MassRatings preserving ratings after a page is moved, for example, if you have page "A" with a rating of c3, and move it to page "B", and then change "B" to c2, "A" will still show up in MassRatings, and with a rating of c3. So, half the time when you're going through C5 or unrated articles, you're clicking them and getting redirected to other pages with actual ratings (or ratings higher than c5). So it's very hard to check on such things. The idea of having a difference between "stub" and "incomplete" is that "incomplete" doesn't scream "help, I am a terrible page!"- they'd have at least a partially filled out infobox and a lead. The stub idea is for awful pages like [1] which are in need of immediate attention (Oh, and bad CJC, go get your rights back :D ) NovaHawk 00:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Well, a bot could do stuff in the maintenance categories, but otherwise, you'd need someone who sees it and says what needs to be added. If the robots are that smart, we wouldn't be needed to edit the articles either :P Maybe I'm thinking of this wrong, but as far as I can tell, a satisfactory page should be complete, in that, why would we be satisfied with a set page lacking, say, a basic description. Basically, I feel we are using "complete" differently - to my mind, complete is where we have everything on the page, but its not fully polished like an FA or whatever a "good article" is these days. Then, stub can just mean "incomplete", as in, "this article has problems because there is information on the topic that should be on the page". (But I never use them, and don't understand what most of the ratings mean anyway) CJC95 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Nope- complete was always intended to be complete, like you said. Then when it got renamed c2, its meaning kinda got lost. By satisfactory, I just meant people could look at a page without cringing :P Incomplete's kinda got negative connations, but that's would it would really mean (if you can think of a more suitable name than satsfactory, I'd be happy to use that) NovaHawk 21:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC) "not really a good page, but not one really bad, so lets just say its alright and forget about it?", or perhaps, "meh". CJC95 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC) If that is what satisfactory would mean, why mark it at all? If we are marking complete, good, and bad (or something like that...) something that is satisfactory/alright must be what isn't denoted, right? Berrybrick (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC) I could go for that - I don't see why everything needs to be labelled. CJC95 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Voting procedures for ratings (if any) Please hold off on this topic until "Should we change or remove any/all ratings?" has been resolved Rating icons Please hold off on this topic until "Should we change or remove any/all ratings?" has been resolved The colours should be purple, red, orange, yellow, green, blue not red, red, Amber, green, blue, blue. This only means changing two colours which isn't hard, and would but the colours in their scientific order. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Quality Check Group/Review Quality Moderators Please hold off on this topic until "Should we change or remove any/all ratings?" has been resolved Voting of Quality Check Group/Review Quality Moderators Please hold off on this topic until "Quality Check Group/Review Quality Moderators" has been resolved